In 2015, a court ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by failing to provide student-athletes with compensation when it uses their images to sell products, and the organization is making an attempt to maintain its concept of amateurism.
Court rules in favor of the plaintiff
Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, filed a lawsuit in 2009 alleging that the NCAA, as well as several other entities such as video game company Electronic Arts, was violating federal antitrust laws by neglecting to compensate athletes whose images were used to sell video games, jerseys and more. While many arguments have been raised about compensating student athletes for their performances on courts and fields, this lawsuit addresses something different. Essentially, it states that these athletes should receive outside income when their images are used to sell goods.
The 9th Circuit court agreed with the idea, somewhat. The most recent ruling on the case expressed concern that cash compensation for athletes could turn the NCAA into a minor league system. However, it did agree with the plaintiff that some sort of compensation should be awarded – in this case cost of attendance. The NCAA has received its fair share of criticism for its refusal to compensate athletes in the name of amateurism.
The federal law the defendants were accused of violating has been around since 1890, and was developed in an attempt to promote competitive trade, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The act is one of three central antitrust regulations, along with the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.
College athletes await the NCAA’s appeal
The NCAA, meanwhile, believes that this sort of compensation violates the tenets of amateurism upon which the organization’s student athlete system is based. The NCAA filed for an extension to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling that the organization’s failure to compensate student athletes constitutes a violation of federal antitrust laws. The proposed appeal is an attempt to save the concept of amateurism as the NCAA maintains it.
“The NCAA has requested a 30-day extension to file a petition for review of the O’Bannon case with the United States Supreme Court,” Donald Remy, the NCAA’s chief legal officer, explained in a statement. “During this time, we will continue to assess our legal options, including preparing for the possibility that plaintiffs will seek further review. We continue to maintain that the NCAA operates well within antitrust laws, but we also agree with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recognition that benefits to student-athletes should be tethered to higher education.”
Now the future of amateurism depends on what sort of argument the NCAA can compose for its appeal. The organization will attempt to defend its concept of amateurism and explain that it does not violate federal antitrust laws.
If you have questions about student athlete compensation or the NCAA, speak with an experienced sports law attorney for more information.
For more blog posts about Amateurism in the NCAA, head over to:
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The NCAA's Attempt to Defend Amateurism
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The NCAA’s Attempt to Defend Amateurism
In 2015, a court ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by failing to provide student-athletes with compensation when it uses their images to sell products, and the organization is making an attempt to maintain its concept of amateurism.
Court rules in favor of the plaintiff
Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, filed a lawsuit in 2009 alleging that the NCAA, as well as several other entities such as video game company Electronic Arts, was violating federal antitrust laws by neglecting to compensate athletes whose images were used to sell video games, jerseys and more. While many arguments have been raised about compensating student athletes for their performances on courts and fields, this lawsuit addresses something different. Essentially, it states that these athletes should receive outside income when their images are used to sell goods.
The 9th Circuit court agreed with the idea, somewhat. The most recent ruling on the case expressed concern that cash compensation for athletes could turn the NCAA into a minor league system. However, it did agree with the plaintiff that some sort of compensation should be awarded – in this case cost of attendance. The NCAA has received its fair share of criticism for its refusal to compensate athletes in the name of amateurism.
The federal law the defendants were accused of violating has been around since 1890, and was developed in an attempt to promote competitive trade, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The act is one of three central antitrust regulations, along with the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act.
College athletes await the NCAA’s appeal
The NCAA, meanwhile, believes that this sort of compensation violates the tenets of amateurism upon which the organization’s student athlete system is based. The NCAA filed for an extension to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling that the organization’s failure to compensate student athletes constitutes a violation of federal antitrust laws. The proposed appeal is an attempt to save the concept of amateurism as the NCAA maintains it.
“The NCAA has requested a 30-day extension to file a petition for review of the O’Bannon case with the United States Supreme Court,” Donald Remy, the NCAA’s chief legal officer, explained in a statement. “During this time, we will continue to assess our legal options, including preparing for the possibility that plaintiffs will seek further review. We continue to maintain that the NCAA operates well within antitrust laws, but we also agree with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recognition that benefits to student-athletes should be tethered to higher education.”
Now the future of amateurism depends on what sort of argument the NCAA can compose for its appeal. The organization will attempt to defend its concept of amateurism and explain that it does not violate federal antitrust laws.
If you have questions about student athlete compensation or the NCAA, speak with an experienced sports law attorney for more information.
For more blog posts about Amateurism in the NCAA, head over to:
NCAA Falling Foul of Antitrust Laws
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
